if we can expect to have a relatively small number of mutations per
individual, then is it logical to infer that a populous will evolve at a
much more excellerated pace the more sparce it is? i'd think a larger
population would more likely sustain its hallmark characteristics due to the
masking. statistically speaking, there would be more of the 'standard
features' being replicated in larger number and frequency than individual
anomolies.
if that is true, then perhaps adaptation is most pronounced during
environmental strife where a specialization is no longer the most fit way to
survive. any anomoly then, has more of a 'voice' in the gene pool of the
species. i'd love to work out the math for that.
thoughts?
